The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty
A Review of Dan Ariely's Book
Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist, became increasingly interested in dishonesty after the 2001 Enron scandal that shook the corporate world. In his witty and entertaining style, his book explores that many people have misguided interpretations of how deception works based on the understanding that humans are generally rational.
The original view of dishonesty centered around a cost-benefit analysis. It goes something like: "I will attempt to get away with anything as long as I believe there will be no consequence." However, as stated in Ariely's previous book, Predicably Irrational, it is clear that humans don't always act as rational beings.
Note that Ariely is not arguing that people do not cheat; in fact, he is confident that most people do cheat often. However, in his experiments, Ariely found that people only tend to cheat a little, even if they can get away with a lot more. His research argues that people still weigh the pros and cons of cheating, but instead of being motivated solely by gains vs. consequences, people also seem to include how they think of themselves – whether or not they can still see themselves as generally honest people despite cheating a little.
This conclusion supposes that rather than humans being rational beings, they tend to be rationalizing beings. People will take small steps of dishonesty as long as they can still sleep at night.
Ariely spends the rest of the book examining experiments that attempt to tease out what will make a person cheat more or less, how much will a person cheat, and what remedies might exist.
Some Questions
His book raised some interesting questions for me:
- Where does this morality come from?
- Humans seem to universally not like being cheated and find it difficult to cheat to the fullest extent, even if we could get away with it. However, if we know that everyone is cheating a little, why shouldn't everyone cheat a little to "get theirs?" In other words, do people universally believe it is wrong to cheat? And why?
- Traditions like the Catholic confessional seem to help people reset their morality.
- As Ariely explores toward the end of the book, are there secular versions of religious practices that would help people cheat less? Could this make more honest workplaces? Better friendships and marriages? etc.?
- We tend to be more dishonest when we are tried and see other dishonest people.
- Is this a good argument for work/life balance, as it is in the workplace's best interests to have their employees be well-rested?
- Should dishonest behavior from public figures have harsher punishments because they seem to influence others to act more dishonestly?
A Flaw
One concept of the book that I found to be weak is Ariely's interpretation of cheating being black and white. There are definitely times when cheating is wrong; we have plenty of examples of that today. But there are times when there is more nuance to cheating.
For instance, Ariely often cites taking office supplies home from work as dishonest behavior. Of course, I would agree that workers should not stock up their pen supplies at home by rummaging through the company's supply closet. However, most situations aren't as clean-cut as Jimmy stealing boxes of pens from the company.
For instance, if there is free coffee at work, can Jimmy take 5 cups when he typically drinks 4? Is he allowed to put in 3 creamers instead of 2? Does the company expect Jimmy to use his personal cell phone for company-related projects?
Here are two possible interpretations of these situations:
- Your company is probably not acting completely honest, so you have the freedom to cheat them a little. (I do not agree with this mentality)
- Or a more nuanced approach of seeing relationships as just that, relationships.
If someone is stealing based on situation 1, they are acting in dishonesty. However, my experiences have never been so black and white. Instead, my relationships are more of a give and take, including my relationship with my workplaces. Unlike when I go to a store and pay a predesignated amount for an item, my experiences have been more like bartering. Both workplace and employees rely on trust to compromise daily to accomplish common goals.
The time I received an extra Macbook Pro
When the M1 13" Macbook Pro came out, I was beyond excited. A side job coincided with the release, and I was able to purchase it soon after the announcement.
I was surprised when I received two boxes from Apple, each with a brand new Macbook inside. I double-checked my order and my credit card to make sure I was not the one who made a mistake. Nope. Apple had sent me an extra (expensive) computer. After contacting Apple and doing some quick research online, I found out that if a company sends you an item, you are not legally required to return it – it is to be considered a gift.
Here I was in an ethical dilemma.
Legally I could keep the extra computer – honestly, I considered keeping it. Think about it; Apple the most valuable brand in the world, so it's not like they needed the money, and they said technically I was allowed to keep it, so why not keep it? Of course, some of these justrifications aren't valid.
Ultimately, my family decided if we could find someone in need of a laptop (someone who actually was in need), we would gift it to them. However, after a week and no one around us seemed to be in need of a laptop, we returned it to Apple.
But this story isn't about if I acted ethically or not. Instead, my point is that if it had been someone else and they had decided to keep the computer, I wouldn't have thought they had cheated Apple. Just as there would be consequences if a person made a mistake toward Apple, Apple experiences consequences when they make a mistake. There are social norms that define morality here – and that's the point.
This isn't a black and white situation of cheating/not cheating. Instead, it is a morally ambiguous situation. I didn't feel like I could keep the computer in good conscience. I felt comfortable giving it away, but since I couldn't find anyone, I sent it back. But if someone else would have decided to keep it and use it or sell it, I don't see that as unethical or cheating behavior.
I don't believe Ariely adequately addresses the complexity of these situations that humans are often put in. This situation exemplifies the importance of personal consciousness and good counsel from those we trust. We need to act honestly to the best of our ability in morally ambiguous situations.
Still Enjoyable
This book is an important reminder that, generally, people will act dishonestly, but that is not a requirement. We have the agency to choose whether to act slightly dishonest or act with integrity. Just as dishonesty seems to be a communicable attribute, perhaps honesty is also contagious.
Perhaps being honest today will influence someone else to choose honesty.
UPDATE
While listening to Freakonomics episode 949, Dan Ariely was mentioned as a side story. It appears that some of Ariely's research was undoubtedly forged. Indeed ironic considering that his book is on honesty. Though Ariely denies the claim that he was aware of the fraudulent data set, this raises concerns about whether any of his research can be trusted wholeheartedly. This incident is yet another reminder that studies need to be duplicated more frequently or even part of the peer review process if scientists hope to have their findings trusted and influence the world around them.
